It’s the Guns! It's the Guns! (Oh, no ... it's the society!)

It’s the Guns - The Atlantic:

 Only 30 percent of Americans own guns. Thus far, that minority has sufficed to block substantial federal action on guns. But a one-third minority—and especially a nonurban one-third minority—may no longer suffice to shape American culture. 

Note: AND since much of East Coast America is Urban ... the whole problem with guns is that non-urban folks know better than you do. 

  Non-Urban (and some urbans)  have a strong survival instinct (gotta have their guns; but you think it's WRONG), and so people who want to defend themselves get all confused by your Urban Chic!

Ignore the problems with Chicago and Baltimore (non-West cost urban societies) ;

These East-Coast societies account for more than their share of gun-violence; the problem with URBAN CHIC Eastern people is that you have too few  people who have guns. (And you think you have too MANY people with guns?) 

Although they aren't typically shooting each other.  

And you can't figure out why an armed society is a polite society?

The outrage after Parkland looked less like a political movement, and more like the great waves of moral reform that have at intervals since the 1840s challenged the existing political order in the name of higher ethical ideals. The most important success of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, for example, was not to change laws (although they changed some), but to change hearts: to persuade Americans that drunk driving was not funny, not charming, and not acceptable. American gun culture in the 2010s is as blithely irresponsible as American alcohol culture in the 1960s. 

MADD is a *(successful)* aberration, not a sterling example by which we may all measure our societal value.

The majority of  gun-owners who are charged and convicted of murder are centered in Urban societies (Chicago, Des Moines, Baltimore, etc.)  where firearms ownership is typically illegal,

...and you don't see a connection between firearms violence and defining firearms ownership as an "aberration"?  Perhaps you are part of the problem, not part of the "solution".  Perhaps the "victims" should have been allowed to arm themselves, to defend themselves ....

 According to a Pew survey, only about one-quarter of gun owners think it essential to alert visitors with children that guns may be present in the home. (Twice as many non-gun-owners think so.) Only 66 percent of gun owners think it essential to keep guns locked up when not in use. (Ninety percent of non-gun-owners think so.)

NOTE: In Non-urban societies, visitors do not consider firearms to be a threat ... and so, they don't bother to inform visitors that there is "a gun in the home":  it's assumed, that they have a gun in their home.  And often, they have a gun on their person when they visit their neighbors.   When non-gun owners see a problem where pro-gun owners do not .... perhaps the people who own guns and are not afraid of them have something to teach the others.

 Only 45 percent of them actually do it. This carelessness and disregard is taking lives and breaking families. The first step toward correcting a social wrong is opening people’s eyes to see that wrong. America has now tallied still more victims and broken the hearts of still more mourners. It’s a horrible price to pay for a moral reckoning and awakening—but the history of the nation promises that while the awakening may often come tragically slow, it does come in time, with all the power of justice delayed but not denied.

This is not a symptom of "Carelessness and disregard", and it is not taking lives.Possessing and/or carrying a firearms is not a "Social Wrong"; it's a normal way of life for many Americans.  When you see normal firearms possession as "carelessness and disregard", you make firearms violence .... attractive.  

The "horrible price to pay" is  that when a sector of American society consider firearms possession a "SOCIAL WRONG", they are sometimes enchanted by the bizarreness of their action (carrying a firearms .. either lawfully or otherwise) and they cannot resist the temptation to  bring it out and shoot their friends.  You don't see this in the America where possession of a firearms is a normal and acceptable state.

You only see it in places where the Second Amendment is considered an aberration.
It's not our fault; it's your fault for defining possession of a firearms  to be a perversion.
You people ought to be ashamed of yourselves!

You brought it on your own heads.  Now you have to pay the price.  Y'all should just get over yourselves, and quit making the natural priority to defend yourself and your family seem like something wrong.

Remington Won't Sell Guns to ... who? Anyone with money? Get Outta Here!

Bank of America's loan to Remington tests its firearms pledge | Reuters:

“It’s perfectly reasonable for them (BOA) to say to any borrower, ‘We’re happy to lend to you if you don’t make military-style assault weapons,’” said Ted Gavin of the Gavin/Solmonese LLC restructuring advisory firm. “The lender has all the power.”

But if the lender is too picky about their customers .. they don't have any customers.
And there are plenty of other customers who really really want to upgrade their  product line with another Major Customer!!!!

(Watch for the "Cave-in" on this perfectly reasonable statement.)

Remington Firearms are perfectly legal.   When the "lender" has sufficiently milked the political  issue, the corporate position will shift just enough to accept perfectly legal firearms as a perfectly legal manufacturer's product.

And Remington Firearms can't stay in business if they don't sell guns.  

What other product do they have?  Popcorn?

Because   $$$,$$$,$$$

And banks don't loan money to companies which don't sell product.

What we have here ..

Gun control: Stymied in 2016, Oregon Democrats vow to try again in 2017 | OregonLive.com:

Unable to pass new gun-control bills this year, months after the state's deadliest shooting, Oregon Democrats are diving into campaign season with promises to try again in 2017. House Majority Leader Jennifer Williamson, D-Portland, wants to revive a measure that would limit default gun sales when background checks take longer than expected, after the bill earned tepid support and died in the Senate last month.

No. Actually, it is an attempt to bypass the 'default' protection previously afforded to firearms owners who purchase firearms.  But the NICS (National Instant Check System) cannot always provide a response in a timely manner,   When this happens, the DEFAULT is to allow the firearms transfer to go through.

This FEATURE (not a "bug") protects the firearms purchaser; independent interests would be required to 'allow' the purchase of a private citizen if they (NICS) could not find just cause to DIS-allow it within a reasonable period of time.    (For the "gun grabbers", there are no independent interests; there are merely PEOPLE WHO DON'T LIKE GUNS, and PEOPLE WHO MUST BE DENIED THE RIGHT TO BUY GUNS.)

It's official: Oregon is UNDER-GUNNED!

US States Gun Ownership Compared To Countries - The Firearm Blog:

This infographic is a real eye opener as far as the number of guns in states like California which compares best with China! Check the graph to see how your state compares with which country around the world!

 (H/T: Gunbloggers.com  and special thanks to The Firearm Blog)

Personally, I'm just a little insulted that Oregon's 'gun ownership' is compared to "England and Wales".

SNIFF!

Hell, I've got more firearms than Wales does!  (Is it Buy A Gun Day again already?)
The comments in the original piece (again, check the link to Firearms Blog) shows that many of their readers feel that their states are under-valued, as well!

Also check the Firearm Blog webpage for a table of population and owned guns.  No, I have no idea where they got their statistics ... but it's still fun to look at.

It's a proud moment for most of us.  Except: really ... New Mexico compares to Belgium??

Got an old gun to sell? Maybe you should just give it to somebody you don't like

Kaine Gun Bill Reflects Opportunistic Deception, Not Public Safety - AmmoLand.com Shooting Sports News:

“It looks as if the only way to shield yourself from criminal liability is to put the prospective buyer through a NICS check, but doesn’t make the NICS system available to anyone new,” Hofmann remarked. “Talk about a Catch-22.”

(H/T: AMMOLAND)

USA – -(Ammoland.com)- “Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) is looking to crack down on gun dealers that sell firearms to criminals,” The Hill reported Tuesday.  “The Responsible Transfer of Firearms Act introduced Tuesday would hold gun dealers liable for sales made to people who are prohibited from owning guns.”

But not just dealers:It would apply to both federally-licensed gun dealers and private sellers.What the guy wants to do is outlaw private sales.  What he wants to do is everything he can to prevent all sales. And destroy some people who don’t vote for him in the bargain.

{emphasis added}

I haven't bothered to research to this article, it's from a "Trusted Source", although it is admittedly "single-sourced" at this time.  But on the surface it appears that gun-grabbers are making an even more concerted effort to convert honest, sane, legal gun-owners into criminals.

So yes, the only way you can protect yourself from this kind of litigation is to confirm the buyer's eligibility to purchase a firearm by referencing NCIS; but no, you as a private citizen do NOT have direct access to NICS.


It kind of sucks to be you, doesn't it?

Buy-A-Gun Day came early this year

I found an ad on my local gun club website offering a Marlin Model 60 rifle.  Ten-round tube fed magazine, offered at $195.

I bought it, and I'm glad!

I know the gun retails for $170, but it also included a Simmons 3-9x Variable scope (over $130), mounted and sighted in.  And a like-new soft case to carry it in.  The owner threw in a half-brick (500) rounds of Remington Thunderbolt HS ammunition.  Total value over $350, so it looked like a bargain.

When I actually saw the gun, it looked like new out-of-the box.  Bore was shiny, finish was perfect, the stock showed no signs of dings or dents, scrapes or scratches.  (It actually had some figure, which was a pleasant surprise to me!) As far as I could tell, I was the first one to actually fire it.

I met the seller at the range and shot five rounds of my own (Thunderbolt) ammunition at a tennis ball which happened to be propped up on the berm 50 feet away.  The scope was set at about 4.5x, so I took an offhand stance and nailed the ball first two shots.  It disappeared.  So I spent the next three rounds on shards of clay pigeons I could see.  Broke them all.  Off-hand.   It wasn't necessary; I had already decided that I had to have this pleasant little rifle.  It shoots better than I do; it was a bargain I couldn't afford to pass up!

Yes, I've read reviews which gave the M60 (unforgivable gun-pun) thumbs down on the trigger.  This one broke true and crisp.  No, it didn't compare with the STI pistols I use for USPSA competition, but it was crisp and non-creepy, and the trigger-pull weight was lighter than I had expected.  Apparently, SOMEONE had shot it enough to 'break in' the trigger, at least a little bit.

It has been 40 years since I shot a Model 60, and I had forgotten how much damn fun it was to shoot a scoped semi 22.

This one goes into the gun safe, and I'm hoping that The Hobo Brasser and I can go for a Sage Rat hunt this spring.  We had to cancel the one last year, due to Honey-Dew issues.

I've got a new bush-bunny gun, 1500+ rounds of high-speed ammunition, and a blood-thirst for varmints like I haven't felt for decades.

It isn't easy being Geek .. but it's a helluva lot of fun!

First gun all-3D-printed gun created

First gun all-3D-printed gun created: (MSN)

A company that specializes in direct metal laser sintering, or DMLS, has created a gun it says is composed entirely of 3D-printed metal. 

It reads like a plot of a dystopian novel: People develop a technology that allows them to manufacture—themselves, in the privacy of their own homes—working guns. Law enforcement is unable to regulate firearms. Chaos ensues. 

When a design for The Liberator, the open-sourced and 3D-printed gun, was released last year, worriers could take some solace: The gun wasn't entirely composed of 3D-printed materials. The gun's firing pin—the thing, essentially, that put the fire in the firearm—was made of metal. And metal is extremely difficult to use as a material for 3D printing. Until ... it's not. 

A company called Solid Concepts, which specializes in direct metal laser sintering, or DMLS, has created a gun, it claims, that is composed entirely of 3D-printed metal. The gun is not only fully metal-made; it is also capable of firing multiple rounds. (Liberator-style guns made of extruded plastic, on the other hand, are at this point able to fire one shot—ever.) The gun Solid Concepts is testing—and, indeed, using as a proof-of-concept—can fire 50 rounds. And be ready for more.

(click on the link at the top of the page to read the entire article ... Hat Tip to The G-Man!)

 I remembering watching an episode of Jay Leno's Garage (or whatever the show is) where he demonstrated this kind of laser technology.  What's it called?  Sintering?  I looked it up: this wikipedia article is almost 4 years out of date, which only proves that any published article is obsolete by the time we read it, if it involves engineering processes.

Yes, the machinery is quite expensive ... the old versions allow Jay Leno to build a plastic carburetor.
whoopie-freaking-doo.  

But .. a metal sintering process which creates a functional semi-automatic pistol?  Oh my, that's quite a different thing.

It's easy to believe that the skills and knowledge which allow one to construct an entire firearm, such as a 1911-style pistol with it's 54 distinct parts, present a daunting challenge.

The thing is, you can BUY parts for a 1911 on the open market with no governmental oversight.  They're not all that expensive.  The only part that the Feds define as a 'firearm' is the part that has a manufacturer's serial number on it:  the frame.

All one needs do to create a completely under-the-roses pistol is to create the frame.  You can buy the rest of the farm from Brownells (or Shotgun News, for that matter) with no more tracking/tracing/regulation than buying "parts".

Using sintering to build a (relatively) simple 3-dimensional object such as the frame of a 1911 seems to be less challenging.  The "Solid Concepts" people made the entire thing, one supposes, including the springs.  Coil springs require special metals.  The sear spring  is also 'special'.   But we're talking chump change here, and absolutely no governmental monitoring.  Same with firing pins, etc.

So, does this recent technological advance present a threat to Government regulation of firearms?

Hell yes!

What will the Feds do as a stop-gap measure?

Oh, you're so smart.  You're right, they will regulate the HELL out of this technology.  In fact, they're working on it already.

The REAL thing is ... do you remember "Jurassic Park", where "Malcolm" (Jeff Goldblum) is told that there is NO way the dinosaurs will reproduce?  His reply, in stentorian overtones, is that "...life will find a way ..."

We're saying, technology is expensive and hard to find, and cumbersome.  At first.  Then it gets simpler, and cheaper, and easier to operate.

For example, my first "cell phone" was a "Bag Phone".  It weighed a ton, was very expensive, cumbersome and ugly.

My current "smart phone" cost 20% of what that bag phone cost.  I've had it for five months and I'm still trying to learn all the ins and outs of using the damn thing, but I'm getting the hang of it without the need to register for a night-school course at my local community college.

I couldn't MAKE a cell phone (or an automobile, or probably even an electric generator), but if I HAD one, I could learn how to use it.

Saying that a DMLS is too complicated for most people to use doesn't buy many turnips, if the Feds expect that sheer technical complexity will prevent people from building their own untraceable, unregistered, non-serialized firearms.

Ever look at the receiver of an AR-16?  And the parts which make it different from the AR-15 (the semi-automatic only version of the fully automatic version)?

Shucks, the different parts you could almost make by hand, if you had the specs and were patient and fairly good with hand tools.  You should note, of course, that this was the kind of "cottage industry" which landed Randy Weaver in Federal hot water at Ruby Ridge.  He just sawed off the barrel of a shotgun, and look where that got him.  That was in 1985, under a much more 'understanding' President.  (Can you say "I must have mis-spoken", Children?  I knew you could.)


Defying the Federal Government is risky business.  They have their job to do, and they can be downright mean.

This is still a government of We The People.

Oh, I am SO going to enjoy the next 20 years of watching the Feds trying to put THIS toothpaste back into the tube!

Also reference the following:

• pandora's box
• can of worms
• meme
• gestalt theory of ideas

If you're not part of the solution ...

We're back where we were in 2008, when Barack Obama was first elected and we genuinely feared that he would enact draconian anti-firearms legislation.  This is the reason why we're having trouble finding ammunition, firearms and reloading components today ... as we did then..

I received an email lately from a local friend who had written to an ammunition supplier bemoaning the lack of availability.  The following is cut from the response which he received;  I have not edited the text at all:

Thank you for the question and do we understand it is difficult to obtain ammunition at the moment. 

Our company sells ammunition products to hundreds of distributors, retailers, and shooting ranges in the United States and these customers have placed giant orders with every manufacturer to try and keep product in their inventory.  We believe that the fear of the American people towards President Obama's administration in their attempt to destroy the 2nd Amendment Rights of Americans is driving sales of firearms and ammunition at such a high level that the manufacturers cannot keep up, even though most companies are operating 24 hours a day and 7 days per week.  Please trust us when we say all of the ammunition companies that we know of are working day and night to build as much ammunition as possible.  The best way to describe the situation is to understand that every single customer that we sell to has placed orders that combined would exceed 2-3 years of production.  This was similar to the sales trend in 2009 after President Obama was initially elected in 2008. Most people feared that the administration would come after gun regulation in his first term, but that didn't happen because the democrats feared that he might not get re-elected in 2012.  Now that he is in his 2nd term, the gun legislation is very heated and pressing forward at the Federal and State level, which is causing the increased demand at the consumer level. 

Here is a letter that was written in one of the industry publications on 2-12-13 by Alan Gottlieb, who is the founder and executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation.  This will give you some perspective on the situation:

Editor's Note: Today's Op-Ed feature was written by Alan Gottlieb, founder and executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation.

Following the hysteria generated by gun prohibitionists in the wake of the Sandy Hook tragedy, a nationwide rush on gun stores began as citizens bought semiautomatic modern sporting rifles, handguns and ammunition, in effect "making a political statement" about proposals to ban such firearms. Making political statements is what the First Amendment is all about. The so-called "assault rifle" has become a symbol of freedom and the right of the people to speak out for the entire Bill of Rights. Banning such firearms, which are in common use today, can no longer be viewed exclusively as an infringement on the Second Amendment, but must also be considered an attack on the First Amendment. Many people now feel that owning a so-called "assault rifle" without fear of government confiscation defines what it means to be an American citizen. Their backlash against knee-jerk extremism is a natural reaction to overreaching government. What should one expect in response to this heightened rhetoric and legislative hysteria? Citizens in other countries react differently to government intrusion into their lives, but Americans are uniquely independent. Among firearms owners, talk of gun bans and attempts to limit one's ability to defend himself or herself against multiple attackers by limiting the number of rounds they can have in a pistol or rifle magazine turns gun owners into political activists. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) did not intend her gun ban proposal to cause skyrocketing sales of semiautomatic rifles and pistols, but that's what happened. She must live with the consequences of her shameless political exploitation of the Sandy Hook tragedy. President Barack Obama never envisioned the rush to purchase rifle and pistol magazines, but telling American citizens they shouldn't have something is like sending a signal they need to acquire those things immediately. Vice President Joe Biden never imagined his efforts would result in a tidal wave of new members and contributions to gun rights organizations, making the firearms community stronger and more united in opposition to any assault on the Second Amendment. 
Freedom of association is also protected by the First Amendment. Perhaps they should take a day off and visit the monuments at Lexington and Concord, and reflect on what prompted those colonists to stand their ground. It was the first time in American history that the government moved to seize arms and ammunition from its citizens, and it went rather badly for the British. Beneath the surface many Americans are convinced that we may be approaching a point when the true purpose of the Second Amendment is realized. Underscoring this is a new Pew Research Center poll that, for the first time, shows a majority (53 percent) of Americans believe the government is a threat to their rights and freedoms. Exacerbating the situation is a perceived indifference from the administration toward the rights of firearms owners who have committed no crime, but are being penalized for the acts of a few crazy people. 
It is time to lower the rhetoric and allow cooler heads to prevail. The demonization of millions of loyal, law-abiding Americans and the firearms they legally own must cease. If we are to have a rational dialogue about firearms and violent crime, we must recognize that the very people who could be most affected have a First Amendment right to be heard. Recall the words of Abraham Lincoln, who cautioned us more than 150 years ago that "A house divided against itself cannot stand." A half-century before him, Benjamin Franklin taught us that "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Their spirits are calling to us now. 

--Alan Gottlieb, Gottlieb is founder and executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation.

We hope this helps paint a picture of the massive increased demand for guns and ammunition at the consumer level.  Everyone wants to get product before the administration passes new restrictive laws. We will continue to work extremely hard 24/7 to manufacture ammunition to meet the needs of our customers.  We will never sacrifice quality or safety to improve overall output, but we will try our best to increase shipments wherever possible.  Thank you once again for your email and we trust that our reply is sufficient.

Best Regards,

That's the end of the text which I received.  I don't have links to any of the comments I've just published, so I cannot confirm their authenticity.   I have no other information to provide at this time, and I will not publish the source of the above text.  As far as I am concerned, this is a "Guest Commentary".  Everything I publish here is copyright as of the date in which it is published (here; February 16, 2013).  This does not negate the copyrights of the original authors.

Removing my publisher hat, and donning again my blogger hat .... still copyright.  But I think that a lot of people are NOT looking at the way the current administration has succeeded beyond their wild dreams at undermining the confidence of the Public and the businesses of the Republic.  This has been accomplishing by our President's continuing reluctance (or inability) to reassure his constituents that America will no undermine the stability of the national business environment, and will not fall into the status of a Police State, where arbitrary edicts become a fact of life and The Rule Of Law has been more-or-less abrogated.

We cannot 'insure domestic tranquility' by arbitrary governmental edicts, nor by the intransigence of our leadership.  Is it any wonder that the market is in turmoil, and our citizens are increasingly looking to providing for their own 'common defense' rather than relying on our government?

This is the moment when our Constitution (and our Declaration of Independence) becomes our own best defense.

The Second Amendment was established for the times when we cannot reasonably expect our Federal government to protect and defend us.   Now, more than ever, we find ourselves ever more thankful that our Founding Fathers have acknowledged our private rights to look out for ourselves, when our government will not do so.

OSP to Firearms Purchasers: "DON'T CALL US"

The Oregon Firearms Federation (OFF) has an interesting editorial at DON'T CALL US, which describes a contretemps between Oregon firearms purchasers (and retail dealers) and the Oregon State Police.

I've bought a few firearms in Oregon over the years (don't ask how many) and some of them were from retails dealers in their brick-and-mortar stores. Other firearms were purchased from Dealer Tables at Gun Shows. All of my purchases were "approved" within five minutes through a contact from the dealer to what I assumed to be a direct connection through the FBI to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System ( NICS ).

Apparently, my ignorance is without bounds. According to the referenced "Don't Call Us" article, those background checks were actually conducted via the Oregon State Police (OSP) office of Firearms Instant Check System (FICS). To me, it makes sense that the volume of traffic would be smaller going through a State system (FICS) than a Federal system (NICS) ... so the response time would be faster. That translates to quicker clearance of a retail sale; good for everyone involved in the transaction. Until, of course, the state computer goes toes-up for a few hours during a major Gun show in ... say ... Albany, Oregon.

oops!

According to the same OFF article, there is an ongoing history of "missed communications" between the OSP and OFF.

Here's what the OFF folks have to say about it, in their March 19, 2012 article:

Don't Call Us, We Won't Call You

As far too many of you know, the Oregon State Police ID Unit was shut down for most of Sunday, crippling multiple gun shows, halting countless sales and costing dealers, buyers and gun show hosts untold thousands of dollars. If you ever wondered why we oppose background checks, this should tell you. All OSP has to do is throw a switch or blow a fuse and gun sales end. Both their phone lines and their new "computer system" were unavailable. But there is a bigger, more constant problem we need to address.

Several years ago OFF was receiving so many complaints about the awful treatment people were receiving from the State Police ID Unit when they attempted to make firearms purchases that we arranged a meeting with them.

At the time both dealers and buyers were frequently lied to about the process, and attempts to contact OSP for an explanation of a delay or denial were routinely ignored.

During our first meeting, OSP gave us a copy of a manual they said they provided to gun dealers that explained "the rules." On the very second page we noted information that was false and against state and Federal law.

During that meeting we were promised that service would improve, the error in the manual would be fixed and staff would be retrained so they would no longer dispense false information to dealers and buyers. For a long time things did seem to improve. The complaints we got dropped off to almost zero. Calls to the challenge line were, as promised, being returned promptly. We have never approved of background checks, but it did seem like an effort was being made to do a better job. Still we believed that because of several factors, including a $10.00 fee and the fact that OSP was databasing info on the gun being purchased, and thereby creating a gun registry, that this job was better done by NICS directly. In 2011 we introduced a bill to do just that. It passed out of House Judiciary only to die in Ways and Means when the Public Employee Unions came out to testify that the Oregon economy would collapse if OSP was not doing gun purchase background checks.

Now it seems we are back to the bad old days. The number of complaints we receive about unjust delays has once again started climbing, but what's worse is the new attitude of the OSP ID Unit.

Where once if you received a delay or "pend" you were promised a response in 24 hours, now OSP is telling people not to bother them and not to expect a call back. Their "challenge line" has an outgoing message saying you will be delayed at least a month and don't even bother to leave a message before a month has gone by since they will NOT call you back. This is an astonishing response from a State agency. "We are going to deny your rights and you'd better not ask us about it."

The attitude of the OSP ID Unit is outrageous and unacceptable. The outgoing message tells people that their "standard delay" is 35 days. But that does not mean you will even get a response then. They can extend their delay forever.

Clearly, a right delayed is a right denied.

Think of the person who has a reasonable fear for their safety. The State Police tell them "tough, it's your problem." and then to add insult to injury tell that person, "don't bother us with questions."

It is important to note that with or without the OSP's approval you are entitled to the gun after three business days as long as there has not be an outright denial. As you would expect, there is nothing in their message that informs callers of this and it is the policy of the OSP not to inform buyers or dealers of this fact. NICS, on the other hand, informs buyers of their rights.

The State Police ID Unit has turned itself into a dictatorial gun control agency that routinely denies people their rights and then demands that it not be questioned about it. This has to stop.

First, call the challenge line to listen to the arrogant and outrageous outgoing message if you press 1 for a "delay". That number is 503-373-1808.

Then call Patricia Whitfield and demand to know why her agency is treating taxpaying Oregonians like an unwanted nuisance when they
are denied their rights by her agency.

(For contact information and a suggested comment block, see the link at the top of the page)


Searching the OSP site, I found this 03/20/12 news release which explains the outage:

Information Related to Sunday's Interruption to Firearms Instant Check System background Checks
03/20/2012
This was updated March 28, 2012.

3/27/2012
On Sunday, March 18, 2012 at approximately 9:44 a.m. the Century Link telephone company experienced a network card failure. At the time, Oregon State Police (OSP) did not know what caused the interruption in service that lasted 3 hours and 32 minutes. This equipment failure rendered the OSP Identification Services Section unable to conduct business functions, including: Firearms Instant Check System (FICS) background checks on persons attempting to purchase firearms, applicant background checks for employment and licensing, as well as criminal arrest identifications and record updates from law enforcement and criminal justice agencies.

In the days following this unexpected technical problem, some questioned the commitment of the FICS unit to complete background checks in a timely manner. OSP is sensitive to how our services affect those who rely on the FICS unit to complete factual research and an informed decision to determine if a purchaser is qualified to lawfully receive and possess a firearm under both state and federal law.

The OSP website goes on to state:

The FICS unit is required by Oregon law to provide the licensed dealer with an estimated time of when the background research request can be completed. The amount of time varies, but in a best case scenario for “Pended” matters the research may be completed within 3 days. Some situations are more complicated and can extend the final determination to a month or more. In each case, the FICS unit is required to contact the dealer upon completion of the research to provide a final qualifying determination.

I couldn't find any statement in this website which acknowledges the OFF assertion that if a purchase is not denied within5 days, the purchase would be automatically approved by NICS.

Here's the text from the final version of the Brady Bill:

it shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer to sell, deliver, or transfer a handgun to an individual who is not licensed under section 923, unless---
...

(ii)(I) 5 business days (meaning days on which State offices are open) have elapsed from the date the transferor furnished notice of the contents of the statement to the chief law enforcement officer, during which period the transferor has not received information from the chief law enforcement officer that receipt or possession of the handgun by the transferee would be in violation of Federal, State, or local law;

Make of this what you will.
_________________________

I also couldn't get OFF's "OUTGOING MESSAGE" link to work, either. I don't know whether this demonstrates OFF's inability to maintain a technology which may be beyond their ability to maintain 100% reliability of service, or their arrogant unwillingness to provide ALL the information needed for ALL their users to be completely satisfied by their services.

This whole brouhaha may merely exemplify the frustration we all feel when required to be all things to all people while dealing with SFC's (Stupid F**king Computers).

But, it's better to know than not to know. Isn't it?

PS: For the record, I think that the NICS approach is the best possible compromise available, until someone comes up with a better idea. Thank God and Browning that we no longer have to fight the original Brady Bill and the egregious "Waiting Period". What a cock-up THAT was!

And that's all I have to say about that.

Clueless Gun Store Owners

I went to a gun store today!

That may not be as exciting to you as it is to me, but listen!

It has been a long time since I went to a gun store. All of the local gun stores have gone out of business, and I have to drive 12 miles to find the nearest one.

Okay, so there's one less than ten miles away in Philomath, and I've bought 3 guns from them ... but I've been burned at least one. It was my fault for being gullible, but the rancor still burns. I was looking for my own .22 pistol. I let them talk me into selling a revolver with no finish, double-action but with a hammer-spur, and the only way to eject empty cases was to remove the cylinder and use the cylinder pin to punch the empty brass out ... and I payed them $200 for it!

I hate people who take advantage of me. Worse, I hate having to admit I've been taken! (That was over a year ago, and I haven't fired a round out of the pistol yet; I'm afraid to risk the "Collector Value"!)

Most of those in "that town" (Albany) are "specialty" stores. The single exception is a very small one-man operation with a very classy store and very classy merchandise. Except he's mostly a S&W dealer, and no matter what you walk through his door looking for, before you leave the store he's going to try to sell you a S&W.

Let me illustrate:

One of my ex-co-workers asked me if I knew where he could pick up a .22 pistol. At the time, I was still working so I couldn't go to this store in Albany that I've always wanted to check out, but they're closed on weekends. (WTF?)

But I've since retired, so this afternoon I spend an hour driving to Albany, checking out the store, and driving back without either a gun or a business card.

I show up about 3:30, charge into the store and the owner is standing at his counter with a perplexed look on his face. I say "Hi! I'm looking for a .22 pistol for a friend of mine!"

"Oh!" (he says) Well, we're closed."

[Picture me looking around] "Huh? The door was unlocked, The sign says open from 1 pm to 4 pm and it's only 3:do. I came in looking for a gun, and ..... ?"

So he explained that he is closing early today, he had turned the lights out and turned the sign on the door to "CLOSED".

Geek Perplexed Look. (I've gotten pretty good at looking perplexed. Practice ... constant practice .. that's the ticket to communication!)

The guy is a nice guy, but his marketing skills need work. He has signs all OVER his shop reading:

NOTICE!
If you are unable to legally possess a firearm, you may NOT enter the premises!

I can't blame him for that, but I would have thought that the sign on the door would have been enough. The sign on the wall facing the door, the sign on the sidewall leading to the counter, and the sign over the counter ... that strikes me as overkill. But it's his shop, and obviously he has a LOT of time on his hands since he's only open 6 hours a day, seems to close early and won't let anyone in his doors on weekends.

Still, he relents when I explain that my mission is to find a .22 pistol for a friend.

"I have a Walther .22. $800."


He doesn't have a card, but when I ask for one he hands me a flyer. I haven't read it yet.

I turn and begin to leave, and on the way out I notice the display of handguns (mostly S&W) in his display cabinet. "Nice Guns!" I mention.

I may have pushed his hot-button; either that, or he woke up and realized he had a customer in his store. Running around his counter he invites me to look at the Forty Caliber S&W. Being a nice person, I decide not to tell him my opinion of the .40 Slow-and-Wimpy cartridge, or how much I love (not!) the flipper/de-cocker mechanism of the S&W Semi-Automatic Pistols. Instead, I say: "Real nice. Looks just like my old Model 659. I gave it to my son."

It is always, ALWAYS a Bad Idea to say anything to a gun dealer which may lead him to believe you are interested. I wasted five minutes listening to his tales of the Mighty Forty, the Wonderful (all steel) 4006, and what a "stopper-cartridge" it was.

Then he hits me with the bad good news: ONLY $895!

Just to impress me, he adds that S&W only made (I don't know, some obscure like "235 of them", and adds: "I have twelve". I think I was suppose to be impressed.


I'm looking around, he's got a steel gun-cabinet (rifle-length floor model, looks like a 5- or 6-gun capacity), also priced at ONLY $895.

Scooting for the door, I make the final mistake of actually listening to his "I See A Customer Heading For The Door" spiel. If I am a 'close' family member of a serving member of the military, he will sell me a special-order firearm without charging me the usual price for "special order" firearms. (Anything that he had on his shelf, of course, was not subject to any kind of discount.)

It took me another five minutes to get out the door. And it struck me, as I as leaving, that there was something peculiarly WRONG with his salesmanship.

• I wasn't greeted as if I was a valued customer.
• In fact, he acted as if I was an inconvenience, and I was stupid to have walked through the (unlocked) door during posted business hours.
• He didn't have what I was looking for in any kind of variety except for a very narrow (and not widely popular version).
• He didn't seem interested in trying to find out MORE about what I wanted, or offering suggestions that might be helpful to me.
• He wasted my time in trying to sell something to me ... a product in which I was obviously NOT interested.
• He made it clear that a pistol (which was so widely unpopular that there was only a very limited run) was something in which he was obviously overstocked.
• And he put a premium price on the pistol.
  

The guy had a very classy store front, and obviously is living off his inheritance because I cannot see how a man with a narrow inventory, a narrow mind, closes his shop arbitrarily early and has no people skills ... can stay in business without an extraneous source of income.

---

The best gun store I even patronized was in Salem about 10 years ago. The owner was a guy whose hobby was trapping. He opened the store to sell trapping supplies. Because that didn't fill many shelves, he also added a 12-point indoor shooting range, rented guns for the range, sold a LOT of reloading components at a competitive price, had an in-store gunsmith, had a very wide range of both new and used firearms (and ammunition, holsters, and other accessories), sold the brass swept up from the range as "once-fired brass" at a reasonable price, and always had at least three salesmen on the floor besides the guy who ran the indoor-range (gun rental) counter.

That store would have been open .. and profitable .. indefinitely, except that one day he became despondant that he wasn't selling any traps, lost interest in the store, and arbitrarily just closed it down. Almost overnight.

What IS it about Gun Store Owners that they can be so clueless?

I Burned Dinner Again --- Thanks, Walt Scholl!

page7b

I started dinner tinite at 8pm, and by a quarter after I was ready to let my pasta-with-meat dish simmer for 25 minutes. I knew I needed to stir it a couple of times, but while I'm waiting it seemed reasonable to run upstairs to the computer and check my mail.

Uh huh, Mom's out of the hospital ... turned out to be nothing.

Uh huh, Digger has a "Gun Free Zone" video to show (I've seen it, posted it here last year)

Uh Huh, Walt has a link to Steve Ricciardelli's "ON-LINE MANUAL FOR EVERY GUN ON EARTH" page (as Walt referred to it). I just HAD to go check this out at http://stevespages.com/page7b.htm

It was an impressive looking website, with a HUGE list of links to manuals which the website-owner has compiled from .... well, all over I guess.

When I tried to right-click on one of the links, though, I got an error window "FUNCTION HAS BEEN DISABLED".

Ha Ha, good joke. It's a gag page. Right?

Wrong. I browsed back through the list and noticed that I had already viewed the manual for KEL-TEK P3AT. I just hadn't bothered to share this find with anyone else at the time ... which was 2 years ago. So I did a little checking. Turns out that the manuals are THERE, you just can't right-click the links to bring it up on another tab or window.

The website home page is http://stevespages.com, and if you follow that link back to the main webpage you will learn that there are many other resources available, not including firearm-related pages. For example, there direct links to about a dozen different on-line news websites.

One thing on the home page you need to note, though, is Steve's warning:

The pages you encounter inside ARE NOT for the hit-and-run user, nor are they for the hit-and-miss user. If you are in a hurry, then don't even bother entering.

I read that and laughed, then started to surf the website.

Forty minutes later I realized that I had not even stirred the pot, let alone shut off the burner, let alone stopped long enough to eat supper.

I think maybe there's some sauce and pasta on the top that I can skim off and it won't taste too burned. I've been a bachelor for a couple of decades, so I'm not entirely unaccustomed to eating burned dinners.

So, I turned off the heat, stirred the pot a little, put the lid back on and came back to warn you: as much as I recommend this site to you --- before you go check it out, please ensure that you don't have your dinner on the stove when you start reading.

I should have posted this on BUY-A-GUN-DAY! But I didn't, so I will add it to my website under "RELOADING SOURCES".

But I'll go eat my dinner first. Even if it will be cold by the time I get BACK to the kitchen

[PS: H/T Walt]

The Brits: Terrorist Rights

lgf: Bin Laden's Right Hand Man Set for Life in Britain

In a blog article from Little Green Footballs, we learn that the 'rights' of an immigrant Terrorist ("One of the world's most dangerous terror suspects") has recently been held by British judges to supersede the rights of the British citizen to protect his country, and the world, from terrorist predations of Islamic radicals.

While I've goaded The Brits in the past because of their lamentable record on such issues of Yob Control, National Health Service and Firearms Control, all previous issues pale in comparison to this, the Nanny State's lack of concern for State Security.

Although I abhor the Brits' lack of realistic comprehension of the minimal requirements to sustain a Socialist State, this incident exceeds the limits of disbelief.

The security of the state being the primary goal of any government, one would seem justified in expecting that the nation-state which gave us James Bond as a model would be, at least, minimally able to comprehend that when you have Ernst Stavro Blofeld in your grasp, you would at least make an effort to retain control of your greater enemies.

Not so The Brits, who are entirely willing to use their prison system as dustbins for their own citizens, and in fact are widely known (publicized) to cite their natural-born citizens for leaving dustbins on the curb. Today, they not only cite their citizens for leaving their garbage cans on the curb, but the penalties for that offense are more strenuous then those for being a terrorist.

I give up. The Brits would be well advised to rescind all laws penalizing the private ownership and use of handguns, because they must perforce rely on the private citizen to defend their paltry nation against the predation of terrorists.

Lord knows that the British Government will provide no defense. Rather, the British Government is setting free Known Terrorists more frequently than they are arresting them ... and they subsidize them as well!

Notes to Brits:

1. don't throw anything away;
2. Get a Gun.

How about the shotgun?

When I discussed the new self-defense firearms I recently purchased, I declined to mention that I decided to leave the Taurus 85 at Chez SWMO with the admonition that this was not a "keep it in the gun safe" gun. Inasmuch as I spend a significant amount of time there, I desired to have a home defense weapon readily available; if SWMBO realizes a short-term need for a home defense weapon, she has permission to use the 85.

Musing upon the conundrum, she suggested: "How about the shotgun?" (referring to the 590 purchase from 2007).

I agree that this is the more effective home-defense firearm. However, SWMBO has little experience with the shotgun, and has much experience with a double-action revolver. I feel more comfortable with the revolver as her 'go-to' gun; less with her reliance on the shotgun.

My theory is that an individual is safer with a firearms with which one is familiar, although admittedly less objectively effective. Thus, my encouragement of the revolver ... for the moment.

However, if this makes her feel more confident at home I'll be working with her to spend some quality Range Time with the Mossberg in the immediate future, with the goal of complete weapons familiarization.

Perhaps we could take a few weekends attending "Practical Shotgun" competitions, in order to build confidence and effect weapon familiarization.

There is no downside, except perhaps for the hypothetical 'goblin'.

Buy-A-Gun Day 2008

I realize that I'm a little early for National Buy A Gun Day this year, but the Albany Rifle and Pistol Club held their semi-annual Gun Show this weekend and I couldn't resist.

The thing is, I was looking through my credit cards &etc. last week to see if I couldn't do without carrying all that plastic, when I came across my Concealed Handgun License (CHL). Looking at the date, I noticed that it was due to expire in October of this year. Five years I've had it, and I have never used it!

Well, I work on a college campus and I can't carry there. Other than that, I'm at home, or on my way to or from a shooting range. (No, I really don't get out much.)

The only reason I had taken out the license in the first place is because when traveling with a gun in the car, it's really a good idea to have a CHL. If I ever am stopped for a traffic infraction and the office sees I have firearms in the cargo hold, I don't want to worry whether it is properly stowed. (The rules for CHL owners are much different from travelers without a CHL; they're much less stringent.)

The fact is, I'm uncomfortable with carrying. But there are times when I wish I was armed. Unfortunately, I'm a fan of 'big guns' and everything I have is fairly awkward to carry around.

But it has been 11 months since I bought my Mossberg 590 (Buy A Gun Day 2007), and my gun fund was in good shape. Also, since I haven't been competing much over the late fall and winter, I haven't spent much on match fees, traveling expenses, reloading components ... I can actually afford to buy a gun. I've been reading a lot about new, small carry pistols and maybe it's a good idea to go to the gun show to see what they actually look and feel like.

And if I don't see anything that I like, or at a price I like, I don't have to buy a gun today, right?

I found some nice little carry guns. I like the little 9mm Beretta. The Ruger Millenium in .40 looks good ... in .45 it looks even better! ... but those are a bit bigger than I was looking for. I even found a small stainless derringer in .22 magnum, and a couple of long/skinny AMT NAA revolver derringers in .22 magnum.


I saw some S&W carry pistols in various metals and finishes, some with shrouded hammers (which I really liked) but again, just a little bigger than I wanted and much too pricy.



Then I started looking at the Taurus 85 five-shot in .38 special. I'm not much of a fan in .357 in a small revolver ... my hands are too big for that power (and recoil) with a two-finger grip, but the .38 special 85 has a nice rubber grip which helps. At $319, they were getting into my price range, but not quite there.

Finally I found Taurus 85 'used' (but it looked like new, the barrel was good) for $20 less. This slipped in under the Geek Sniff-test barrier and registered a resounding 'BINGO!' on the Geek-o-meter. Better yet, it was on the multi-table layout of a local gunshop. I do prefer to buy locally if at all possible.


Being convinced that the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence, I nipped over to the tables on the other side of the display and snooped until I found a Kel-Tec P3AT ... which stands for .380 caliber (Get it? 3AT = 380. Cute as hell.) It fits in the same 2-finger grip as the 85, but with flat stocks. Shoots the weaker (arguably) 9mm Kurz, and will hold 6 rounds in the magazine and one up the spout if you choose to walk around with a semi-cocked DAO pistol.

And the price was less than the Taurus.

What to do, what to do?

You know what to do.

I bought them both.

At least I don't have to worry about having a bloated Gun Fund for a while.


But wait, there's more!
After the paperwork was completed they asked me how I wanted to pay. "Uh, I don't know. Personal Check? Or I can put it on my credit card."

The lady at the counter said "we accept personal checks, or if you want to put them on your credit card we charge an extra 3%." I allowed as how that was uncommonly trusting of them. The lady snorted: "A man would be a fool to pass a bad check on a firearms purchase. They'll hunt him down." Good point, I didn't ask who would hunt me down because I was very careful to check my balance before I left the house.

I wrote out the check and didn't even weep when I wrote down the amount, as I usually do.

"How about a spare magazine for the Kel-Tec?" I asked. Ever the harbinger of bad news, the lady replied "sorry, we're all out. We can't keep them in stock. But check in at the shop next week, and they'll let you know when we get more in." She also suggested that I check other vendors at the show ... but nobody had them.

Then I left, two new (to me) pistols in hand, to look for a Kel-Tec .38 magazine and 'practice' ammunition for both pistols. It took me a while to find practice .38 Special ammunition (2 boxes at 13.95 each), a box of 20 .380 hydroshock (old @ $10) and two 50-round boxes of 92 grain .380 ( jacketted) @ $10.50.

(Note: the next day ... I found the Les Jones review of the P3AT. He mentions feeding failures; SWMBO and I shot about 20 rounds through this weanie pistol, and it fed perfectly. Les Jones also mentioned a white dot on the sights, which was not evident on my version. It appears that some changes, which are improvements, may have been applied to the design since Jones reviewed it 2 or 3 years ago.)

I also looked at holsters for the Taurus 85, but most of what I found were that awful Uncle Mike stuff, including shoulder holsters and the most uncomfortable, ungainly and inconvenient ankle holster ever conceived by the mind of man. I passed. I may find something from Dillon or somewhere on the web for the revolver, but it won't be made of ballistic nylon no matter how highly touted they are for preventing rust. (I'm not certain of the basis of those claims, but they are distinctly low-class. On the other hand, I use to think the same of Forbus holsters until I saw how well they worked.)

OFF to the range!

From there it was a 20 minute drive to the range, where I ran a half-box of each through the guns. (Didn't shoot the Federal hydra-Shok 90 gr hollowpoint ammunition.)

Unfortunately, not really expecting to buy and shoot guns we didn't think to bring ear protection. After shooting the first cylinder of .38 Special through the Taurus 85, I found an old Blimpie's Sandwich Shock paper napkin in a jacket pocket and tore off a quarter sheet to stuff in each of my ears. SWMBO thought I was being too geekish, but when I suggested she try both pistols she could no longer hold her hands over her ears and she, too, resorted to the primitive ear protectors. Believe me, even the crudest hearing protection is better than none at all ... especially when shooting pistols with extremely short barrels. That dog's bark is the same as its bite, they both hurt!

Even using reading glasses it was very difficult for me to see the sights for either pistol, but to my surprise I found it was easier to shoot a 'tight' group at 8 yards with the Kel-Tec than with the Taurus 85 ... for definitions of the expression "tight group". Here, it meant the difference between one I could cover with my fist, and one that I could cover with my hand; and as I have mentioned, I have big hands.

Being accustomed to the crisp glass-rod-breaking feel of a premium quality STI Open Gun, SWMBO was appalled at the long, heavy, mushy feel of the Kel-Tec DAO trigger. I noticed that she tended to take a LONG time to drag the trigger back, and just at the end the muzzle dipped.

However, she had some experience in shooting a Taurus Model 65 (4" barrel, an N-frame if it was the original S&W upon which the Taurus is modeled, in .357 magnum ... which is her house gun now), and had no real complaints about it.

I'm not sure what I'm going to do with both of these pistols. I like them both, although I too found them difficult to get use to. I suspect I'll get a wallet holster for the little Kel-Tec and use it for the casual 'going to the store' kind of gun. The revolver may end up being a car gun, for traveling. Or it may become the house gun, although I already have an uncounted number of house guns at Chez Geek The Mossberg 590 will always remain my primary, loades with 7-1/2 shot because of population density in my neighborhood. The Taurus will probably be the one to use when the shotty gun isn't close at hand.

But I already know I have to find something better than Winchester 130gr FMJ for the new house gun.

Did I mention that these pistols were too loud to shoot comfortably without ear protection?